NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE ELLIOT WILLIAMS, No. 20-55393 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02345-MMA- JLB v. BUENOSTROME, Correctional Officer; et MEMORANDUM* al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Lance Elliot Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.

See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)); Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017) (exhaustion is measured at the time the action is filed); McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2015) (to show that a threat rendered the prison grievance system unavailable, a prisoner must show that he was actually deterred from filing a grievance).

We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that the district court should have considered as evidence Williams’s unverified opposition to summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-55393